RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION DOCUMENT:
“A new approach to rail passenger
services in London and the South East”
PREAMBLE
1. Context
This response from
concentrates on matters affecting the
users of
and users of other transport modes in that area. Charlton Rail
Station lies on the Greenwich line (London termini via Greenwich) AND on the Blackheath
line (London termini via Blackheath and Lewisham) to Gillingham.
With many bus services running past and/or adjacent, Charlton Rail station has become a
mini-hub for local transport services. It is also the overground station link to the O2 arena and
the station for Charlton Athletic FC. Because Charlton residents and transport users travel to
many parts of London and elsewhere these comments do NOT relate exclusively to matters
that affect the London South East proposals.
The population of Charlton has been increasing for the past several years and continues to
do so. [expand]
2. Scope
Our response takes account of the announcement made on 21 January 2016 that
responsibility “for inner London rail services that operate whol y or mainly within Greater
London” wil transfer to Transport for London (TfL). Although the precise services and
geographical area are not specified, for the purposes of this response we have assumed it
includes all train services through Charlton Station.
3. Current Issues
The consultation document describes aspirations that are difficult to contest, but there is still
too little detail. Whether those aspirations can be met will continue to depend upon factors
outside of TfL’s control, for example that Network Rail will continue to be responsible for the
infrastructure, and for the allocation of train paths. This has always been a limiting factor
restricting operators from delivering service improvements.
The allocation of train paths is now a key issue and Charlton users feel strongly that their
interests are often disregarded, in particular with regard to the diversity and timing of services
to London Charing Cross and London Victoria. A key test of the proposed new structure will
be how the demand for such services is addressed, given the conflicting interests of other
mainline operators.
RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION QUESTIONS 1 - 6
For convenience, the six questions raised in the consultation document are set out below,
together with the
response. Further comments then follow.
Question 1
Do you agree with the principle of a partnership to better integrate the specification of rail
passenger services across London and the South East?
Better integration of train services, ticketing and pricing is clearly a welcome objective. How
effective the proposed arrangements will be in delivering this in practice will depend upon a
number of things:
i)
how limited resources are prioritised;
ii)
how the competing demands of inner suburban rail users and
longer-distance passengers is handled and addressed;
iii)
the formal structures adopted for consultation with users and user
groups across the affected area;
iv)
how improved integration with other TfL services (both for transport
services,
AND crucially, ticket validity and pricing) is achieved;
v)
what relationship is formed with Network Rail to agree use of the
infrastructure and the train paths to deliver train services;
vi)
what governance structures, management structure, operational
procedures, and service delivery philosophy are adopted and how to
make these appropriate to suburban services;
Of the above, items ii), iii) and iv) will be the ones by which users judge the proposed
changes,
Question 2
Do you agree with the principles that the partnership will work to? Are there any specific
issues that have not been captured?
Three principles are set out:
a) More frequent services, better interchange and increased capacity
b) Greater reliability for all passengers
c) High standards of customer service
Whilst we agree with these principles, it is overly optimistic and possibly misleading to imply
that they will flow automatically from the proposed partnership.
a) More frequent services, better interchange and increased capacity
Without significant and very costly investment, track capacity into the London termini will
continue to be a severe restriction after the Thameslink programme is completed in 2018.
Although there is some scope to improve off-peak services through use of spare track
capacity, in the peak periods there is no such opportunity as lines serving Cannon Street and
Charing Cross are already operating at maximum capacity. For example, there are very few
services from Charlton to Charing Cross during the morning peak and there is no direct
returning service whatsoever for over two hours (from 16:39 to 18:48) during the evening
peak.
Intermediate services are vital both to Charlton and stations to the east, providing access to
Gillingham/Medway through Gravesend, Dartford, Abbey Wood (for Crossrail), Woolwich
Arsenal (for DLR), Charlton (interchange with Greenwich line), Blackheath (interchange with
Eltham line) and Lewisham to Charing Cross. They also vastly improve local connectivity and
a high frequency all-day service will achieve significant modal shift.
b) Greater reliability for all passengers
The partnership can have only a limited role in improving reliability. Disruption brought about
by train failures or long wait times can be improved somewhat by the train operator, but
disruption caused by failures in the infrastructure, over-running engineering work, or poor
response to external factors (everything from adverse weather to terrorist threats) will still be
partly under the control of Network Rail.
c) High standards of customer service
TfL stations do generally provide a better level of customer service than that provided by
SouthEastern. Should the same standards be applied then that would be welcome. However,
staffing every station all day raises major questions about resources, roles and
responsibilities of staff, security should lone-working be adopted, and the future of ticket
offices. We believe the Charlton station booking office to be a major community asset which
could vastly extend the range of services available (topping up Oyster cards, selling Oyster
season tickets, selling Thames Clipper and Emirates AirLine tickets etc.).
As things stand, suburban stations are rarely, if ever, staffed from late evening and never
through the night. Charlton’s ticket office closes at 1600hrs on Sundays assuming there is
anyone to open it at all. Any improvements would be welcomed.
d) A fourth principle
This should be “high quality information and effective communication”.
The existing customer service screens do not always provide passengers with the
information they need. Common problems are:
i) trains arrival times showing as due in one or two minutes, then
suddenly becoming due later, and later still;
ii) trains showing as slightly delayed which then disappear
completely from the display without explanation;
iii) the train due to arrive first suddenly changing, thereby causing
confusion as to which service, route and destination is actually
on the platform and about to leave;
iv) no “live” information at al when services are suspended due to
line closure, just a “welcome” message!
v) utterly terrible advice at times of disruption, including bad or
misleading advice on alternative routes and services on which
tickets are valid
The provision of accurate information, linked to live running, must be a priority.
Question 3
Do you agree with the proposed governance arrangements?
It is impossible to agree or disagree as there is a lack of clarity on how the proposed
partnership would work, and what actual role and contribution local users’ representative
organisation will have. While we have many issues with SouthEastern’s quality of service,
we have found them very willing to engage with local user groups and, although a painful
process, we have achieved some notable improvements to the services, timetable and
station facilities. We do not have confidence that the local authority would necessarily
represent our interests fully and/or accurately, and so we think there should be a built-in
system within the governance arrangements ether for user groups to have representation
directly on the Board, or for a formal consultative group that embraces both the local
authorities and local recognised user groups.
Until the mechanics are made clear in a public document we reserve our position on the
proposed governance arrangements.
Question 4
What form do you propose the input from local authorities and LEPs could take?
A major question arises from the statement in the proposal document (p20):
All services will have the benefit of greater
input from local authorities, including the
ability to specify service enhancements
depending on local priorities and funding
arrangements.
The Royal Borough of Greenwich has completely inadequate consultation arrangements for
obtaining and understanding the views of residents.
has found it far more effective to
directly lobby SouthEastern Trains or to go through our MP. If local authorities are to play a
formal part we would expect there to be a very clear accreditation process that would commit
them to meaningful involvement and inclusion of local user groups that represent local
commuters and other passengers.
Question 5
Do you agree with the safeguards for transfer of inner suburban services to TfL, as set out
here?
It is reassuring that the following commitment has been made (p22):
“The partnership will work to ensure that any
transfer of services ensures the following:
•
No detrimental effect on fares, either at
stations served by TfL services or at other
stations outside London”
However, this does not go far enough!
At a minimum we would seek to ensure that the existing franchise provisions on
Southeastern as the operator, in so far as they affect services in our locality, are maintained
or enhanced.
Furthermore, the proposed safeguards effectively give longer distance services a priority
over the needs of London commuters. The provision that there is “no adverse impact on
frequency, journey times, and stopping patterns of longer distance services” will have the
effect of setting in stone the present ratio of long-distance and London suburban services,
With no additional capacity for access to the London termini, and with population growth high
in the London suburbs, it is essential that some mechanism exists for re-prioritising services
to reflect changing demands.
Simultaneously, it is vital that through-service continuity from London termini all the way to
Gillingham is maintained. It would be seen as a highly retrograde step if
all journeys beyond,
say, Dartford involved a change of train.
Question 6
Are there other outcomes you might expect to see achieved?
We regard the following as absolutely necessary improvements that are long overdue under
the current franchise arrangements:
a)
Services to London Charing Cross
As indicated above (response a) to Question 2) an improved service to Charing Cross
during the morning peak and restoration of direct services from Charing Cross during
the evening peak periods.
b)
Services to London Victoria
Addition of some regular services to London Victoria would be a most welcome
addition to the current service.
c) Ticket Machines
i) There is just
ONE ticket machine at Charlton station which regularly
proves inadequate. A queue frequently builds up, not only at peak
travelling times, but on many other occasions too, e.g. if the ticket office is
closed or when there happens to be users with complicated ticket
requirements, or unfamiliarity with the machine causes a delay. More
machines are an urgent priority
ii) The existing Southeastern machines are designed for use on National Rail
services and have been altered to allow use with the Oyster card system.
They lack some functionality, specifically the ability to access Oyster travel
history.
d)
Travel Information
Poor travel information, or it total absence, is a constant complaint from users, as
cited above (response d) to Question 2). It is time that modern display screen
technology is introduced, coupled with intelligent systems for delivering useful advice
when things go wrong, and backed up by staff who are:
properly briefed on resilience procedures,
knowledgeable about the network and alternative arrangements, and
helpful and well mannered
The following are highly desirable:
e) Improvements to the Station Environment
Charlton station, especially the ticket hall, is overdue for a major refurbishment.
Ideally the prefabricated building (provided to replace the original Victorian structure
that was destroyed in WWII) will be replaced with a high quality structure.
Appendix II:
Possible improvements in support of a London Suburban Metro
South East
comments
London
Current
• 8tph to Victoria
No Victoria services via
service levels
• 39tph to Charing
Charlton and insufficient for
(excluding fast
Cross/Cannon Street
Charing Cross
services)
(including semifast)
• 7tph to Blackfriars/
Thameslink
Short term
Planned
• Introduction of Crossrail
Welcomed.
improvements
interchange at Abbey Wood
during current
• More rol ing stock – around Welcomed provide these
franchises
92 extra Carriages
have
adequate seating for
longer journeys.
Medium term: what could be delivered
Potential
• Reliability improvements
Welcomed.
improvements
• Al -day staffing, integrated
Very much welcomed.
under new
fares, station deep cleans
train operator
and refreshes, train
contracts
refurbishment
• Off-peak service
Welcomed.
enhancements
Long term: what could be delivered
Potential
• New interchange at
further
Brockley
improvements
• Potential for other
Provided good access to
upgrades like Lewisham hub
Lewisham is maintained this
is welcomed.
• Better signalling, new high-
Welcomed.
capacity trains on inner
suburban routes
• 12-car operation as the
Welcomed.
norm
Total end
• Real ocation of capacity
Potentially welcomed
result: service
released by possible
depending upon seating
/ capacity
Bakerloo line extension being capacity –
see above.
enhancements
developed by TfL
• Service from Lewisham to
Welcomed.
central London increases
from 23tph to over 70tph
including Bakerloo and DLR
18 March 2016